“These “don’t-rape” courses have no interest in teaching women to take proper ownership of the decision-making process that leads to a yes or no, let alone encouraging them to express those wishes clearly rather than keep men guessing.
Back in the 1990s I made a programme on sexual consent – Yes, No, Maybe – as a guest reporter on Four Corners. I had no trouble finding women who acknowledged they deliberately drink to avoid making decisions around consent. Women who admitted to playing games where they said no but wanted men to push through that resistance – a popular theme in hugely popular bodice ripper novels.
None of these complexities are addressed in the sexual consent programmes”
“There is no such thing as consent because patriarchy. Some girls require years of reeducation before they realize that while they were screaming, “Yeeeeeeeeha! Ride that cowboy!” they were being raped. Because patriarchy is just that awesomely powerful” (Source)
Rape culture is one of the mainstays of contemporary feminist ideology, and some assert that it is a crucial prop in maintaining the culture of perennial victimhood for women that then in turn manufactures the ‘need’ for feminism.
The nature and even the very existence of a ‘rape culture’ (at least within modern western societies) is hotly disputed as evidenced in the positions put forward in the reference works listed below. As you will note, north American university campuses have been the major focus for activism in relation to this issue.
Where is all this talk of rape culture leading us to? Hysteria and denial of justice to the falsely accused. Here’s a relatively benign, yet still troubling, May 2015 Australian example (also here).
I would suggest also reading this related post within this blog, with further related posts elsewhere in this blog (just click on the subject tag/s at the listed at the base of this page).
In January 2016 we heard about a new development that yet again shows the utter hypocrisy of the feminist movement, and it’s disregard for the welfare of ordinary women. This development occurred due to a clash of feminist ideals, in which the progressive liberal SJW bias of many feminists won out. In Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve at least 100 women were sexually assaulted by Muslim ‘refugees’ from the Middle East. There followed a disgraceful cover-up by the leftist media and government spokespeople, as described in this article.
Congratulations feminists/SJW for creating a rape culture where there was none, by feminising western males, encouraging a PC-inspired kid-glove (if not, hands-off!) approach by police, whilst lobbying for unfettered entry by huge number of people with a very different and conflicting cultural background.
So much has happened in North America in just the past 2-3 years concerning rape hysteria, especially in relation to real and alleged campus assaults. Finally after many court cases by wrongly accused men, and revelations concerning high-profile hoaxes and false allegations, some sense is returning the debate.
Rape culture: what makes a boy a man? (19 April 2016) Australia. “Of course there is a need for some lightness” (=anything women do to, or say about, men). Because it’s different when a woman does it. Even raping their students, Steve?
Fear: The terrible feeling every woman experiences by Melissa Hoyer (6 November 2014) and Pray for Clementine (4 December 2014) Two similar articles by Australian feminist journalists concerning their sickening level of paranoia regarding men. In the second article Clementine Ford is freaking out because a stranger in the street, a man, tried to talk to her.
http://time.com/40110/rape-culture-is-real/ (Christina H. Sommers described this article thus: “Sorry, but this is exhibit A of what has gone wrong with Nth wave feminism. Fallacies + melodrama. When will it end?” Best proceed quickly to the comments section)
“There was a woman I knew intimately a few times. She is today an assistant professor of literature in a university and teaches with an explicitly feminist bent, able to effortlessly write reams upon reams of stuff in that vein.
In bed, she really did prefer it when the man took the lead and she was thankful that I’d broken the ice and made the first moves and so on. Afterwards, she said some words about me acting “entitled” to sex, an accusation which I found stunning at the time seeing as how we’d never had done it if I hadn’t stuck my neck out.
So that’s how it is with feminists. They expect– nay, DEMAND– that men make the first move and, when they do, sneer at them for their effrontery and being too forward, all of which is “entitlement” in their world. Their own normative situation of feeling they ought to get sexual attention– only when wanted– without breaking a sweat to get it and having their minds read in the process is, of course, a natural birthright and not “entitlement” in any way, shape or form.” (Source)
“I remember listening to the This American Life episode on testosterone. In Act 2, when a female-to-male transgender person is interviewed, he lays out all the graphic and objectifying thoughts he now has as a man. At no point is he challenged by the interviewer Alex Blumberg in his assumption that this must be how men see the world despite the fact that he, by his own admission, is taking HUGE amounts of testosterone as part of his transition–approximately 2-3 times the amount found in a typical adult male. A common element of misandry (which incidentally the text editor is underlining in red as not being a real word) is the idea that lewd or dangerous sexual behavior is merely the logical extension of normal male impulses. “I felt like a monster” says the interviewee followed by “It made me understand men. It made me understand adolescent boys a lot.””
In 1913 a gentleman by the name of Ernest Bax wrote:
“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.”[From The Fraud of Feminism, p.1-2]
In this post I am using a broad definition of censorship that includes blocking or excluding or misrepresenting people/groups or opinions that are at odds with all or part of the feminist narrative.
I should mention that it is not only anti-feminist perspectives that are censored, but also sometimes perspectives offered by men who identify as feminists, or by women who identify as (for example) equity feminists rather than gender feminists.
An example of feminist men being excluded can be seen in this article about a pro-abortion rally in Ireland where men in the audience were told to “know your place” and to remember that “this is a women’s movement“.
Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”. Except that feminists often substitute the la la la with somewhat saltier language.
What is happening is that any view that runs contrary to feminist ideology is branded misogynistic and hateful, and thus automatically unworthy of consideration. In my eyes, alternative viewpoints are not necessarily hateful. Sure they might cause hurt feelings, but that is part and parcel of debate in intelligent adult society.
Feminists say they are addressing both mens and womens issues, and will make the world a better place if we just stay the F**K away and let them do what they need to do. This is a nonsense. Has there been even a single policy change initiated or achieved by feminists that has had a tangible benefit for men collectively? (Cue: sound of crickets)
Good quote about feminism: “That’s what gets me about them — for thirty years, they screamed that slogan [make the personal, political] at the top of their lungs. And then, once men start turning to politics to make the personal political, they start hemming and hawing about whether or not this issue or that one is really a ‘mens’ issue. But somehow, everything on earth is a women’s issue.” (Source)
Let’s be quite clear that we are talking about censorship based on ideology and personal preferences here. I have no problem with moderators taking action against posts that are threatening, incoherent, or peppered with profanity.
So what then are some of the techniques commonly employed by feminists/SJW to isolate those putting forward alternative positions?
Blocking and/or removal of posts or readers comments in online blogs and mainstream media web sites
A major factor in motivating me to create this blog was the annoyance I experience when I’m continually thwarted upon trying to post my views in online fora, for example in blogs, discussion forums, and mainstream news sites like news.com.au.
This blocking or removal of dissenting posts is extremely prevalent in sites related to discussions of gender and feminism. It generally occurs when I, and others like me, put forward perspectives that conflict with cherished notions held by the (usually female feminist) author or moderator. These are people who are, more often than not, singularly unwilling to accommodate alternative positions. I lost track long ago of the number of times this has happened to me … examples here, here, here, here, and here … courteous posts that were either not uploaded, or uploaded but subsequently removed.
This September 2016 article about domestic violence by Rebecca Poulson is an example where readers comments were overwhelmingly critical of the author’s perspective. The author complained on social media of her comments thread being “hijacked”, with many of those comments subsequently being removed by the moderator.
I don’t mean to be pedantic but the use of the term “hijack” demonstrates the sense of entitlement shown by many feminist writers. The definition of this word entails illegal seizure (of an aircraft, ship, or vehicle for e.g.) whilst in transit, and the use of force to make it travel to a different destination. Readers offering their views is neither illegal nor does it involve force, and others are free at any time to offer their own views.
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Let’s consider the experience of another who has had similar experiences:
M the Atheist wrote on 3 September 2013 “… I found a thread about rape and power and spent the time to read the post and all the comments, did not seem too hateful and had some reasonable stuff … I wrote a very reasonable and objective post about rape, power and rape culture (based on one of GWW’s videos). I included data, reason, personal experience and points from GWW’s video; and was surprised that it got posted …
I went back a few hours later to find that my post was removed; and I could not figure out why. I went through great pains to make it neuter, people inclusive, and posited GWW’s hypothesis in what I thought was a well mannered and calm, dispassionate way.
They had also posted and allowed to remain other males’ posts. So why not mine? I then realized that they only allow mens’ posts to remain if they can destroy them or if they are easily group-attacked.”
Something similar also happened to Australian TV personality David Koch when he sought to respond to an attack on him posted in a feminist web site. Another example here from the UK.
With the exception of reddit/r/mensrights and a few others, there is a high probability that any post made that challenges the leftist or feminist narrative will quickly be made to disappear. It will either be removed by a moderator on their own volition or on the basis of the post being reported by users of the forum. This is not ‘tin-foil hat’ stuff, it happened to me as recently as this morning.
Two other common occurrences on Reddit, involving those making posts that challenge or question the prevailing feminist/SJW commentary, are:
Posts being removed from view to due to down-voting. The speed at which this occurs, plus the large number of votes cast, suggest that this is an organised strategy employed by like-minded activists.
Reddit users being banned from posting in particular forums for posting often remarkably benign comments or questions. Examples of this are provided in reddit/r/mensrights on an almost daily basis.
Another common tactic employed by feminists on social media is to lodge reports, which may be exagerated or completely bogus, about Facebook pages maintained by others. They often do so in a co-ordinated manner with their friends/associates, with the aim of having the relevant pages suspended/removed. And in many cases they are successful.
It would be one thing if the administrators at Facebook were applying these rules and restrictions evenly across the board, but that is not the case. What is happening is that Facebook pages with a conservative or egalitarian or anti-feminist slant are being targetted. Meanwhile a blind eye is being turned to questionable content within pages with a leftist/liberal/SJW or feminist slant.
There are further examples and discussion of this trend in articles listed later, in addition to the following:
Developments on Facebook have helped drive many people, both those with anti-feminist/SJW views and trolls alike, across to Twitter where until recently there was a relatively unimpeded flow of ideas and information. Things are now also tightening up there also, both in terms of actions taken by Twitter staff and other users. For an example of the former, google search to see how Twitter have pursued MRA and anti-feminists such as Milo Yiannopoulos. More recently Twitter has introduced tools to enable greater censorship (see here and here).
Another Australian feminist, Van Badham, revels in her ability to block in this 2019 article.
This means that a Twitter user can find him/herself blocked from another user’s stream even when they have never had contact with that particular person or group. In some cases this may occur simply because your account was red-flagged due to others that you follow.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been blocked – Here are two examples:
In my first example a feminist journalist by the name of Lindy West blocked me. I don’t know Lindy from a bar of soap, but apparently she considers my views on anything/everything to be unacceptable. Really Lindy? As one cheeky reader commented in response to this article, perhaps you’d be better off blocking Twinkies instead.
At least in my second example I actually had some contact with the blocker (Tara Moss) before the hammer fell. That single solitary tweet is shown below:
Lobbying against planned events by anti-feminists or men’s rights advocates and/or disrupting events whilst they are underway
In what is becoming a popular strategy to prevent opposing views being heard, feminists are setting off fire alarms at venues hosting MHRA or anti-feminists speakers. If you want to get some idea of how widespread this form of nuisance ‘activism’ is becoming then google on the words ‘feminist protesters pull fire alarm’. Go ahead – you can start by reading this and this. And only recently feminist protestors disrupted a presentation by CAFE.
Christina Hoff Sommers debated Roxane Gay in Sydney & Melbourne in late March 2019. Refer this article and linked Twitter stream for now, whilst I try to locate a better review (oh and here’s a SMH offering with reader’s comments). Apparently Gay’s leftist supporters focussed on disrupting the event rather than letting an actual debate take place.
The term ‘anti-democratic’ is way too insipid to describe this pattern of behaviour. This is something more negative, much darker and more pervasive, and which all but precludes any meaningful dialogue. Indeed the direction in which this is already heading is that any comments that are deemed to be anti-feminist and/or sexist will be made illegal on the grounds of combating hate-speech (example). Opposing this trend, at least for those that have the means to take legal action, is legal precedent such as this.
A curious aspect of feminist censorship is that one of its key functions is to block open debate of their own issues. Even the noisiest feminists only want to be heard when they can control the ‘dialogue’. Otherwise … well this challenge by Milo Yiannopolous to Anita Sarkeesian (thus far) illustrates what shrinking violets even high-profile feminists can be when someone else seizes the initiative. Mike Buchanan’s web site features many examples of his own unacknowledged public challenges to feminists to debate significant issues.
Feminists don’t want to debate issues or engage with their opponents, they want to neutralise them by almost any means necessary. What follows is a brief extract fromRules for Radicals‘ as cited in a blog post by Anne Althouse:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Some articles on the general issue of the gradual death of free speech and/or the unwillingness of the liberal left to engage constructively
Two good articles in The Australian on 24/25 September 2016 (if you can get behind the paywall): ‘What more in the name of love?‘ by David Crowe, and ‘Straight-out hate in politics of identity‘ by Brendan O’Neill. Neither article specifically mentions feminists, yet very accurately describe their tactics.
“Labels are important tools in identifying socio-cultural problems. Privilege exists. Shaming exists. But when we adopt labels, project them onto others, or create new ones, we sometimes take broad social concepts and individualize them. We use labels to silence those who don’t agree with us, which keeps us from engaging in open, honest conversations. Many people with legitimate opinions and solid ideas are afraid to participate because they are afraid they might say the wrong thing, or say the right thing in the wrong way. When people are silenced, the conversation suffers.”
Articles/videos specifically about feminists, and their allies, stifling open discussion of gender issues
“The Google employee behind a ten-page viewpoint diversity manifesto that went viral online has been fired. James Damore, whose manifesto criticizing the politically correct corporate culture at Google prompted outrage from left-wing employees and social justice warriors online, revealed that he had been fired” (Source) More at:
To Milo or not to Milo? (21 February 2017) How the left neutralised a very annoying thorn in their side. A story rich in hypocrisy given what various feminists/SJW have previously said & done & walked away from without penalty.
Archetypal mangina David Futrelle seeks to undermine credibility of film-maker Cassie Jaye because she dared to produce a fair-minded representation of the men’s rights movement. See here, here and here for example
And now to close with something a little different, this April 2015 article in The Guardian claims that men post far more comments online (think news and current affairs web sites), and that this has the effect of “silencing” women. The author also claims, amongst other things, that many women are posting online using male names for “protection“. Firstly this begs the questions how could he know how many of those posting were men/women. Secondly it would be counter-productive to assume a male name for this reason when surveys show that men attract significantly more online abuse/harassment than do women. But the best bit is that the moderator removed my comment. They didn’t even leave the usual “Your comment was removed” message. They silenced me!
“The anarchist Bob Black predicted back in 1982 that feminism would eventually become a totalitarian movement to rival history’s most oppressive tyrannies. Most people find this idea absurd due to gynocentrism, “women are wonderful” and neoteny (and frankly, male vanity). However Black made the point that feminism — since its arguments are completely illogical and do not stand up to scrutiny — could not maintain power except through censorship.
Feminists are attempting to turn all of society into a “safe space” for feminists (not women, not children, certainly not men, just feminists). That includes cyberspace. As more and more people debunk feminist ideology online, calls will grow to “end online misogyny,” with predictable results. There is already a huge chilling effect underway.” (Source)
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review states that “Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
Oh, if only I could get a dollar each time I heard a woman say “where have all the nice guys gone!?” (here’s a recent offering). One may not, however, mention the corresponding query “where have all the nice girls gone” because that would be so terribly misogynistic.
Well, some clever guys made their way to Asia or to other parts of the world where the influence of feminism is less pervasive. Many others are waking up and smelling the coffee with respect to what a bad deal marriage can be for men. As a consequence a large and steadily increasing number of men are choosing not to get married, a phenomenon some have labelled ‘The Marriage Strike’.
Other men are taking it a step further and opting not to enter into ANY significant ongoing relationships with women. This latter group are referred to as ‘Men going their own way’ or MGTOW, which is discussed in this video.
A google search on the term ‘marriage strike’ produced many results, including these:
Many would have you believe that this phenomenon reflects men’s unwillingness to commit and accept responsibility to a union of equals. In fact the thread running through all feminists articles on the subject (and most MSM articles too) is that women are dateless or single wholly because of one or more named deficiencies on the part of men. There is rarely even the glimmer of a suggestion that some responsibility rests with women themselves.
Of course there are some men who have issues, but for most the decision not to marry is one of pragmatism. It is the outcome of a rational cost/benefit analysis by men that weighs up all the things they might (or will) lose through marriage, versus those things that they will (or are likely to) gain. The institution of marriage has now swung so far, in terms of the respective rights and responsibilities of men and women, that for men there is unfortunately now only one logical choice.
My own mother is in her 90’s and remains fiercely independent, and still very much sound of mind. Just in her circle of friends and family she has heard plenty of horror stories about guys being divorce-raped by selfish manipulative women. And her take on it? She says that if she was a young guy nowadays then there would be no way to get her to the altar as the odds are so very much stacked against them.
Read the articles below and see if you can seriously blame men for walking away from the institution of marriage. I despair at the number of women that I encounter whose primary, if not sole, focus is on what they can get from a relationship. I strain to see evidence of any serious thought being given to the question of “what I can contribute to this union to ensure it remains strong and fairly balanced?” It’s almost as if their sense of entitlement is so overwhelming that they believe that merely the pleasure of their company should suffice.
Want to get yourself a man? Then shut up (20 January 2016) Strong women can’t get a man because of the unrealistic/unreasonable/inappropriate expectations/behaviour of men (and definitely not because “strong” is fem-speak for ill-mannered, controlling and selfish)
Leaving aside remnant neanderthals, most men today understand and readily concur with the idea of ‘give and take’ within a relationship. But we do have a problem with partners who take, take, take.
Of course once upon a time married men were accorded a higher social status than unmarried men, and marriage was once the only way decent men experienced a viable sex life. But not now.
Ok, so what tangible benefits does marriage confer on a man today?
A family? Assuming a man can afford a family AND marries a woman young enough to conceive, many resist having children. And at the end of the day, most men are all-too-aware that the prevailing legal system can and does remove a husband’s access to his kids with frightening ease and frequency.
A carer and housekeeper? Well this one is no deal-breaker as most guys are willing to pitch in and do their share. Indeed, am I alone in having encountered more than a few households where the husband does most of the house-work, as well as holding down a full-time job? Indeed many women now not only lack domestic skills (thanks to all those progressive mummies and daddies) but are also unwilling to countenance such tasks (example re: cooking).
Consider also the many households where a wife chooses not to engage in paid work, does little or no housework, whilst profligately spending her husband’s income … only to then later financially destroy him upon initiating her no-fault divorce. Remember that men still generally take significantly more assets into a marriage than do women, and most divorces are initiated by women.
Step up so they don’t have to (Part 1), by Dalrock (10 May 2017) An interesting Christian perspective on the contemporary male’s choice to avoid marriage. And whilst we consider the Christian perspective, perhaps view this video entitled ‘ Young Women shouldn’t settle’, about what men versus women expect from their marriage partner.
No, I’m not afraid to be single in my 40s (4 June 2016) I wonder if the author and female readers would view a man writing an article (in which he expressed similar thoughts) in the same light? If yes, then great. I somehow suspect however that there would be comments along the lines of the man being selfish, a man-boy, unable to shoulder responsibility, etc
Young women increasingly anxious about their finances (7 March 2016) Australia. Two things here. Note increasing unhappiness of women despite feminist ‘advances’. Second I wonder how much of that stress is due to the realisation that they are increasingly unlikely to find a Mr. Right (or Mr. Anybody) who will step in and clear their debts and then keep them in the manner … So no Plan B after years of casual mooching of boyfriends & living day to day.
Minnesota nears slipping below 50 percent married rate (3 December 2015) USA. Why do most of these articles only provide a part of the picture and studiously ignore the rest? For e.g. they all mention that the marriage rate is dipping due to women delaying marriage, but neglect to mention that one reason they do is because many men don’t want to marry them!
Where are all the smart men? (3 May 2015) New Zealand with related reddit mensrights discussion threads here and here. A separate, and even more ignorant editorial here concludes with “The failure of men to foot it with them educationally in equal numbers is no reason to change the education system or promote men undeservedly. The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.”